• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Control. Power. Monopoly. Gaming: What Nintendo tried to do, what Microsoft is FAILING to do.

The low-end hardware, no AAA 3rd support Nintendo you love or hate today, used to be ALOT worst than Microsoft in the 80s.

In the 80s, Nintendo didn't just take "saving the gaming industry" as a 1UP; they used that to control the market.

They were arrogant to developers in what and how games should run on their system and bullied retail stores in what their layout should look like to bottleneck any competitors.

They monopolize gaming or at least see it in clear view.

But if you think the Nintendo today is an old-fashioned samurai who lost to the likes of Microsoft with online games or Sony with the Playstation having dual analog, no.

Nintendo is more of an Old Yakuza boss looking down on those two today with its 30+ years of protecting its IPs (they may have lost the fight to pirating, but while Microsoft tries to get rid of console exclusives, Nintendo IPs have stood the test of gaming.) But every Yakuza boss, every Company like Nintendo, has a rival that challenges them.

Sega.

While Microsoft today cry bullies its way to power and with money, Sega went to work in the 80s by producing better games and better hardware.

They have a mascot [Mario]; we have a mascot [Sonic]; they have a Final Fantasy; we have... Phantasy Star.

That determination stopped Nintendo's power trip from monopolizing gaming (and with the recent news that Microsoft wanted to acquire SEGA, this theory gives a possible reason why).

(I'm paraphrasing history here for a narrative discussion)
 
Last edited:
krule-john-c-reilly.gif
 

StueyDuck

Member
I won't bore you with old man Gaming History.

But the low end hardware, no AAA 3rd supoort Nintendo you love or hate today, use to be ALOT worst than Microsoft in the 80s.

In the 80s, Nintendo didn't just take "saving the gaming industry" as 1UP, they used that to control the market.

They were arrogant to developor in what and how games should run on their system and bullied retail stores in what their layout should look like to bottleneck any competitors.

They monopolize gaming or at least saw it in clear view.

But if you think the Nintendo today is an old fashioned samurai who lost to to the likes of Microsoft with online games or Sony with the Playstation having dual analog, no.

Nintendo is more of a Old Yakuza boss looking down on those two today with it 30+ years of protecting is IPs (they may have lost the fight to pirating but while Microsoft tries to get rid of console exclusive, Nintendo IPs have stand the test of gaming.) But every Yazua boss, every Company like Nintendo has a rival that challenges them.

Sega

While Microsoft today crybullies it's way to power and with money, Sega actually went to work in the 80s by producing better games and better hardware.

"they have a mascot, we have a macsot, they have final fantasy, we have Phantasy star"

It's that determination that stopped Nintendos power trip to monopolizing gaming. (and with recent news that Microsoft actually wanted to aquire SEGA, this theory gives a possible reason why)

(I'm paraphrasing history here for a narrative discussion)
But none of this is what happened apart from Sega wanting to compete.

Nintendo essentially started with curating their catalog because that was their market strategy. The put limitations to their carts and they entered the market by creating themselves (not buying publishers) the best games. Were games being licensed? Yes, but remember at the time the arcade industry was far larger than home console market and alot of licensing deals were a byproduct of how arcades operated at the time, Nintendo cleverly operated purely in homeconsole licensing.

Sega had a much larger dominance in that arcade space then Nintendo had, also Nintendo was open back in the day to certain 3rd party agreements, many Mario games appeared on other platforms, only after the botched Panasonic 3do and Sony-nes deals did they really tighten their IPs down solid.

And I'm guessing the overall point of this thread is to console war and say "consolidation is great MS should own all of gaming, look at sonic"

To which I'd respond with; look at Sega then and look at Sega now. Look at sonic then and look at sonic now.

I'd also have to mention that games back then were not 200 million dollars to create and weren't taking 6 years with 1000s of employees to make, saying today "just make a new call of duty ip" is ridiculous, and we all know it, those who argue against that are doing so in bad faith.

Finally Sega killed themselves, these modern takes that Sony or Nintendo killed them are embarrassing. they had a hard headed jpn leadership that refused to grow and adapt to the times, they farted out the dreamcast, devouring their recently released Saturn sales and Peter Moore ended up leaving Sega US because the decisions being made were pushing Sega into the black.

Guess where Peter Moore went after Sega collapsed 😉.
 

deriks

4-Time GIF/Meme God
Dude, there's a difference between "I want to be big" and monopoly. First one is how capitalism works, and how it's fine because we use their shit on a everyday level. The other one doesn't really exist at least for now, but some countries don't really care about that and pretends that care, like China
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
I won't bore you with old man Gaming History.

But the low end hardware, no AAA 3rd supoort Nintendo you love or hate today, use to be ALOT worst than Microsoft in the 80s.

In the 80s, Nintendo didn't just take "saving the gaming industry" as 1UP, they used that to control the market.

They were arrogant to developor in what and how games should run on their system and bullied retail stores in what their layout should look like to bottleneck any competitors.

They monopolize gaming or at least saw it in clear view.

But if you think the Nintendo today is an old fashioned samurai who lost to to the likes of Microsoft with online games or Sony with the Playstation having dual analog, no.

Nintendo is more of a Old Yakuza boss looking down on those two today with it 30+ years of protecting is IPs (they may have lost the fight to pirating but while Microsoft tries to get rid of console exclusive, Nintendo IPs have stand the test of gaming.) But every Yazua boss, every Company like Nintendo has a rival that challenges them.

Sega

While Microsoft today crybullies it's way to power and with money, Sega actually went to work in the 80s by producing better games and better hardware.

"they have a mascot, we have a macsot, they have final fantasy, we have Phantasy star"

It's that determination that stopped Nintendos power trip to monopolizing gaming. (and with recent news that Microsoft actually wanted to aquire SEGA, this theory gives a possible reason why)

(I'm paraphrasing history here for a narrative discussion)
Publishers called Hiroshi Yamauchi “Hitler”. That’s how much they loved the Nintendo monopoly of software in the late 80s.
 

Three

Member
Nintendo back in the 80/90s strong armed literally everybody, developers into using their factories, stores into using their prices. They have a better image now but when they had that power back then they abused it


 
Nintendo back in the 80/90s strong armed literally everybody, developers into using their factories, stores into using their prices. They have a better image now but when they had that power back then they abused it



Jurassic Park Ian Malcom GIF


People shout console war to any comparison between these companies.
 

SteadyEvo

Member
Damn some people really overrate Sega
Shenmue was the ish back in the day. Of course it hasn’t aged well. Crazy Taxi, ready 2 rumble boxing, power stone and sonic adventure were amazing. But that was back in the Dreamcast days. Sonic is a shell of its former self. Where Virtual Fighter? All I think about it Yakuza when I think Sega nowadays.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
I’d love to see Microsoft #1 but clearly they can’t, they sent bungie to hell, has issues with exclusives, and something about their hardware people don’t like. Hopefully they start to figure it out, because you could make the argument that Microsoft could be #1.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Isa
They were arrogant to developor in what and how games should run on their system and bullied retail stores in what their layout should look like to bottleneck any competitors.
the video game crash of the 70s was still fresh in everyone's minds, and was due in large part to absolute shit game quality. nintendo didnt want a repeat.
'member this?
hSuK7MA.png

sega did it too:
images


nintendo also demanded the the highest software royalties from third parties.

this really helped sony when they came along with the ps1, as sony demanded far lower royalties and discs were way cheaper to produce.

but yeah, nintendo was the king back then, and it had no problem throwing around its weight.
the console wars never stopped.
giphy.gif
 

theclaw135

Banned
What is this thread about?

You had to be there. Nintendo rebuilt the American gaming market, into a form of dominance essentially incomprehensible to modern audiences. At the peak in 1988/1989, Nintendo controlled upwards of 80% of all video games sold in the USA (although only consoles crashed, the arcade golden age was over, and for home computers the decade was a tumultuous series of "format wars").
 

BootsLoader

Banned
You had to be there. Nintendo rebuilt the American gaming market, into a form of dominance essentially incomprehensible to modern audiences. At the peak in 1988/1989, Nintendo controlled upwards of 80% of all video games sold in the USA (although only consoles crashed, the arcade golden age was over, and for home computers the decade was a tumultuous series of "format wars").
Thank you kind sir. I was born in 1990 so I missed that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa

Drell

Member
while Microsoft tries to get rid of console exclusives
By buying big publishers?

I mean what you said is true, Nintendo abused of its dominant position in the late 80's but they didn't have the money to buy the industry just like MS is trying to do right now. They may have been as bad as them but they didn't and don't have, today, the means to hurt the competition as much as Microsoft can and want to these days.
 
Top Bottom